Not at all sure that BRAKE wrote that. I thought the article was written by Road Safety GB, and they were quoting something said by a member of BRAKE. But regardless of that surely we should look at the ideas, not whether somebody can spell, or whether their spell checker got it wrong?

Taffy wrote:Not at all sure that BRAKE wrote that. I thought the article was written by Road Safety GB, and they were quoting something said by a member of BRAKE. But regardless of that surely we should look at the ideas, not whether somebody can spell, or whether their spell checker got it wrong?

As was pointed out by the OP: if you want to be taken seriously, you should pay attention to how you present your argument, and that includes the spelling. Saying that the spell checker got it wrong is a cop-out because you should not be relying one. They can be helpful but are far too fallible, and even more so if set to the wrong language.

Taffy wrote:Not at all sure that BRAKE wrote that. I thought the article was written by Road Safety GB, and they were quoting something said by a member of BRAKE. But regardless of that surely we should look at the ideas, not whether somebody can spell, or whether their spell checker got it wrong?

As was pointed out by the OP: if you want to be taken seriously, you should pay attention to how you present your argument, and that includes the spelling. Saying that the spell checker got it wrong is a cop-out because you should not be relying one. They can be helpful but are far too fallible, and even more so if set to the wrong language.

As for BRAKE's ideas ...

The main point I was making is that I don't think BRAKE wrote the article.

Taffy wrote:Not at all sure that BRAKE wrote that. I thought the article was written by Road Safety GB, and they were quoting something said by a member of BRAKE. But regardless of that surely we should look at the ideas, not whether somebody can spell, or whether their spell checker got it wrong?

BRAKE definitely wrote:Learner driversMinimum learning period of one year before learner drivers can take their practical driving test, theory test and hazard awareness test.The learner’s licence should not be fully valid until the learner driver has received a minimum of 10 hours’ professional tuition in a car with dual controls.Learner drivers, as at present, must be supervised while driving, and the minimum age of accompanying drivers should be raised to 25.Accompanying drivers should be registered as ‘approved accompanying drivers’ by completing a questionnaire to prove their suitability.Learner drivers should have the same restrictions placed upon them as novice drivers (see below).

So, you have to wait a year to take the Theory/HP Test? At the end of the Practical bit? Or is that a minimum of a year studying for the Theory, then another year for the Practical?Is that an hour a week for a year? Or five hours a week? Or 100 hours over a year? Who signs off on these hours?BRAKE seems to imply that the "School of Mum and Dad" is the "go-to" method for teaching their offspring to drive a ton and a half of killing machine (notwithstanding that the parent passed its test 30/40 years ago, 'when all this were fields').Not to worry - 10 hours with a professional will sort that out.Accompanying drivers should be registered? Wow. Like an ADI?

If young drivers are such an issue, the answer is either make them drive more with a DVSA ADI (Car) of don't let them drive till they're 24.